Archive for March, 2017

So I happened to stumble upon the Sean Hannity Show on SiriusXM yesterday, and heard his interview with Austan Goolsbee, the alleged economist who worked for the Øbama administration. During this exchange, Hannity pointed out the Trump plan to end Øbama’s “war on coal,” and all Goolsbee can do is point out that Trump is disingenuous because natural gas competes with coal and Trump is removing barriers from its production, too. REALLY?! Øbama quite literally put the coal industry out of business. Øbama quite literally put energy production out of reach on federal lands – Goolsbee touted that such production more than doubled “under” the Øbama administration – rightly countered by Hannity that this occurred on PRIVATE land IN SPITE OF Øbama’s efforts.

There was also discussion regarding Øbama’s record accumulation of federal debt (Goolsbee: inflation; Bush’s fault) and many other points of Øbama administration failure to which Goolsbee seemed only able to spew liberal talking points.

Folks, I don’t get it. I cannot conceive of how these idiots continue to try to defend the indefensible. Are they counting on the audience being too stupid or equal ideologues that they cannot see through this stuff? And, yes: there are those who will pull the lever next to “D” if the devil himself was the candidate – just as there are for any other party – but, honestly: how can anybody espouse the liberal “logic” and remain sentient?

Again, I firmly believe that liberalism is an not yet medically defined form of mental illness.

Well! If this doesn’t have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, I don’t know what will: Regarding David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress, Kah-Lee-Phone-Ya State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a longtime Congressional Democrat, charged the two anti-abortion activists with 15 felonies for making undercover videos of themselves arranging to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood. In a statement, Xavier said that the state “will not tolerate the criminal recording of conversations.” You forgot to capitalize that “s”, Xavier.

Covert data gathering has been a cornerstone of investigative journalism since long before Xavier’s birth. It has also been a cornerstone of such enterprises as law enforcement, private investigation – even inter- and intra-party politics, as evidenced by the “leaked” recordings of various private meetings of politicians and party committees where there actually may exist a reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s the key regarding illegal recordings, and this is going to be Xavier’s primary hurdle pressing his bogus charges in court.

In the Planned Parenthood case, at least in the recordings I’ve seen, the recordings were made in restaurants and other public places, where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. In virtually all of the recordings I saw, there were multiple people involved in the conversation. In none of these conversations did anyone imply or state that the discussions were confidential – not even the Planned Parenthood personnel. So: on what grounds does Xavier, the Champion of the Democrats, find these charges justifiable and viable in court (any court except the 9th District of Kah-Lee-Phone-Ya and the District of Hawaii)? Where is the criminal intent in exposing the criminal activities of an organization?

Personally, I don’t think this case has a leg to stand on – especially in light of similar charges against these two failing in Texas – and is all about punishing those who oppose and expose organs (no pun intended) of the liberal agenda. This is an agent of the government using lawfare to both bankrupt and otherwise punish these individuals, while also sending the clear message that one should not go after any darlings of the State. They are being made an example of.

In all fairness, when this fails in court, Xavier should be impeached for abuse of office and disbarred for unethical behavior.

I normally write political stuff in these pages, but, since the method to do this was rather simple, but hard to find information on, I thought I’d provide a “tech tip” for those, like me, who use GMail despite that the company is run by a gaggle of liberal putzes.

I recently decided that I valued the mail from WebMD as something more than just ads for their site. Previously, all WebMD was filtered as both “ads” and “promotions,” making them rather easy to hunt up for deletion. So, simple me: I went into GMail’s Settings menu and picked Filters and Blocked Addresses.

Next, I used the browser’s search-on-page (usually ctrl-f) feature to find WebMD among the saved filters. When I found it, I clicked the word “edit” to the right of its entry. From the resulting window, click the word”Continue” at the bottom right. A new list of checkboxes appears. Since I was already filtering these emails, the “Apply the label” check box was checked and the last-applied label was shown in the text box to the right of it. I clicked this box to reveal the list of possible labels, and selected “Health.”

Before clicking “Update Filter”, be sure to check the box next to “apply to XX matching conversations” to apply the new label to all the emails you found in your inbox.

Well, now! That should have done it, right? Bzzzzt! That only added the Health label – it had no effect on “Ads” or “Promotions” labels already applied – Doh!

Here’s how to eliminate the unwanted labels: In your inbox search (part of the GMail user interface; not ctrl-f used earlier), enter “from: ” followed by enough of the sender’s email address to uniquely and completely identify what you’re after. Note that you can use “to: ” if the sender of interest sends to a unique address – like a listname – or “subject: ” or nothing at all to qualify your search term – you just need to ensure it pulls in all emails of interest for your relabeling effort. As I stated earlier, I used the “from: ” address.

Now, click the selection box, and click “All” to select all of the emails resulting from your search.

Finally, click on the little tag icon, and then click off the checkboxes next to any label you no longer want associated with those conversations. Click “Apply” at the bottom to make it so.

The two critical steps of this process – editing your filter and removing unwanted tags – have solved your problem. These emails will no longer show up under any labels except those which you left active.

The President-elect won the election with less than 40% of the popular vote but had the majority of electoral votes. The Republican Party had put forth a candidate to win several crucial states that could swing the electoral college. The election was a bitter one with the Democratic Party fractured between two candidates.

The incoming President received so many death threats that he chose to arrive in Washington in secrecy. The security for the inauguration was the tightest ever with troops stationed on buildings throughout the day. This was an unprecedented amount of protection for any President – elect. Many members of Congress chose not to attend the ceremony.

Despite all this Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as our 16th president on March 4, 1861.